What i mean by the statement was that christian thinking is communal to a sense that we take care of those that are less fortunate. Those who have fallen on hard times. As a community within the Church we are generous with our charitable causes. The liberal front is that they profess the same charitable asperattions. Therefore when i said that liberal leaning Catholics may see that ideology as attractive, in that sense i can see the attraction for catholics. Afterall over 50 % of Catholics vote democrat.

Now here comes the part that i made a plea to liberals. please examine what this charity has accomplished in our society. Instead of taking care of those who have fallen on hard times, we have provided a means for plp to live off of this charity for generations. We have created a mentalility of someone else will pay for it. The Govt will take care of everything. As Cathoics our charities are localized, we know the true needs and abilities of those that are in need. Our goal is to get them back on their feet. The Govt is trying to take the place of the faith based charitable groups in each community. The gov't has taken over as a place of refuge for our people and pumps out checks to over 50 % of citizenry. They compete for our hearts and minds and the Church is their competition. The Gov't has the power too negate their competition with control of the media in forming opinions, Laws they inact that weakens their competition and they create such laws in such a way as to weaken society and social norms which we have had for centurys. Little by little these attacks have come from the liberal secular side of politics.

So the plea to the liberals was to examine both sides of the liberal agenda and descern earnestly as a catholic which side, liberal or conservative, truly stands for the basic christian principles

Good post and I would point out that when the State decides it will be the arbiter, it does so without any consideration of a higher authority and while handing out those checks and increasing my taxes at the same time, it denies me the right to practice true Christian charity. And for those liberals who think big government is the answer and that they are the ones truly concerned about the poor, I would ask what virtues do you think you are practicing while being coerced to fund social programs?

__________________

Neither human nature nor the Commandments nor the Gospel have an expiry date.

Yes, if we have to pay fines, we cannot feed the poor like we did before. There are a lot of things we won't be able to do like we did before. The money will be going to the federal government instead of the food banks and soup kitchens. People will stop donating and then people will lose their jobs. Then the food banks and soup kitchens will be able to serve even fewer people. And so on.

Good post and I would point out that when the State decides it will be the arbiter, it does so without any consideration of a higher authority and while handing out those checks and increasing my taxes at the same time, it denies me the right to practice true Christian charity. And for those liberals who think big government is the answer and that they are the ones truly concerned about the poor, I would ask what virtues do you think you are practicing while being coerced to fund social programs?

Let's think about this a little more. One might ask oneself what, exactly, this administration has done for the truly poor; the neediest? The answer is, nothing. In fact, it has harmed the poorest of the poor.

How has it done that?

Well, completely aside from the fact that a lot of the able-bodied poor would like to have a job and the additional fact that this administration deters job creation, there are several things.
-"Cash for clunkers". An upper-middle class welfare program that destroyed the "clunkers", which were, to qualify, operational. Poor people are the buyers of "clunkers", and the "clunker destruction program' reduced the supply.
-Medicaid expansion. it's hard enough now to get physicians and hospitals to accept Medicaid patients. By expanding it to include greatly more people, those who are utterly dependent on Medicaid and have no way to get anything else no matter what they do, are being crowded out.
-Emphasis on "well care" and manipulation of reimbursement rates to favor routine well care exams over "chronic care" patients. Chronic patients are overrepresented among the very poor, and particularly among the disabled. It is getting harder and harder to get disabled people treated.
-Obama's determination to cause utility rates to "skyrocket" as he said. The truly poor are the ones who have the greatest difficulty paying for heat, lights, AC, refrigeration. Yet, obama is determined to make those costs "skyrocket".
-Possibly my biggest peeve. The most destitute of all are those whose sole source of income is SSI. You have to be totally without assets to get that. Despite the overwhelming Democrat majority and a Democrat in the White House, did they raise it? No, they did not, other than the COLA that applies to all similar benefits and happens automatically. It's $698/month, maximum. Try living on that.

I guess I have to admit that i think the government has a definite role, even obligation, to aid those who cannot help themselves. But it is precisely those people for whom this administration has done absolutely nothing.

One should never believe the Democrat myth that the party cares about "the poor". It hasn't done so for decades. The party of today is like a dissolute heir busily squandering the family fortune on sexual misadventures, while leaving his children destitute.

It doesn't impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the "objectionable" coverage go *directly* to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It's no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It's between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn't be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn't make it any easier on religious employers.

When, pray tell, did any insurance company ever ... " give it for free ." Nothing is for free; someone ( in this case all insureds ) pay . This notion of insurance companies providing something for nothing is pie in the sky ( in my opinion ). Insurances companies are not in business to give out free goods/services. I believe we are quite naive if we buy into that idea.

You're right, there are no free lunches. The costs will be made up and factored into premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts across the board. Everyone from subscribers, to employers, to providers will be paying a portion of it, whether they use all of the available benefits or not.

Employers, subscribers and providers will be paying for it. If the insurance companies are mandated to provider riders for those who work for religious based employers, it's no different than another rider added on to a policy, except that the insurance company is mandated to eat the cost. Of course, all the benefits will be made more affordable by factoring them into the premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts -- just like other benefits.

This is not an issue.

I want a president who will represent everyone, not only one demographic.

A sensible post, Rence, all around. Is this something similar to the way it works now? Lots of people have the coverage already and it's already being paid for across the board from monies insurance companies collect?

The gov't has taken over as a place of refuge for our people and pumps out checks to over 50 % of citizenry.

I see. Well, in spite of the twisted distortion of a few things that resemble facts, those 50% of Americans having checks "pumped" out to them are in great part elderly/retired and that money is their Social Security, which they earned.

People left to the whims of other's charity die of starvation and disease, and as long as you can pay for internet access, and I can, neither one of is us has given enough to end human suffering in light of how much there is.

Now, what exactly is the topic of this thread, so I can figure out how to stay on it?

Not to be a pain, but what does God think of contraceptives? Jesus had nothing to say on the matter

Maybe not but He had a lot to say about the poor, homeless, hungry, naked, and caring for people. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics saying over an employer mandate or now an insurance company mandate, that they will close the doors of places that serve these and according to Jesus, by serving these, they serve Him.

Maybe not but He had a lot to say about the poor, homeless, hungry, naked, and caring for people. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics saying over an employer mandate or now an insurance company mandate, that they will close the doors of places that serve these and according to Jesus, by serving these, they serve Him.

If the government can step in and say that an employer is required to cover care that violates religious beliefs, what is stopping the the HHS secretary from imposing other requirements. Why shouldn't euthenasia be covered? It prevents all illness, would save the government & insurance providers billions of dollars. Really, you wouldn't be killing anyone, you'd just be paying to have them killed.

There is nothing to prevent the government from mandating coverage of assisted suicide. The health care law gives so much power to the HHS that it is a pandora's box out of which anything may come.

Assisted suicide is now legal in several states. The HHS secretary could mandate coverage for such in coming years, with the added 'benefit' of incentivizing other states to pass such laws. The HHS could mandate the use of advanced directives which tilt the equation toward death. Eventually, the HHS could mandate coverage for active euthanasia, with no waiver for those who have religious objections.

There was, and is, simply no compelling governmental interest in mandating coverage of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. Contraception is already widely available. Planned Parenthood touts it; schools provide it. There is no shortage of contraception. There is no government interest whatever in mandating contraception coverage. It's everywhere!

Obama said if you liked your current plan, you could keep it. Now he says, you can't! Lots of Catholic institutions and Catholic businesses have plans which are not morally objectionable. Now, HHS says, you can't keep those plans! You have to include the morally objectionable items, or if you wish to adhere to your religion, pay a fine to do so.

What kind of country is it where you must pay a fine to practice your religion?

People left to the whims of other's charity die of starvation and disease, and as long as you can pay for internet access, and I can, neither one of is us has given enough to end human suffering in light of how much there is.

Good point which is why government can play a role along with the charity given by individuals.

I see. Well, in spite of the twisted distortion of a few things that resemble facts, those 50% of Americans having checks "pumped" out to them are in great part elderly/retired and that money is their Social Security, which they earned.

People left to the whims of other's charity die of starvation and disease, and as long as you can pay for internet access, and I can, neither one of is us has given enough to end human suffering in light of how much there is.

Now, what exactly is the topic of this thread, so I can figure out how to stay on it?

the topic was a plea to liberal catholics to examine why they support the liberal agenda when it purposely intends to undermine catholic morals. The HHS , minnnesota courts challenging the sancity of the confession, etc etc.